Identity Cards Bill - Standing Committee D

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Identity Cards Bill

Clause 11 - Power to require information for validating Register

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

Alistair Carmichael: In this morning’s sitting, I commented on subsection (5) and the curious absence of Scottish Ministers, and I speculated that, under paragraph (e), they might not be covered in respect of all their functions. I hope that the Government will look into that before we return to this matter on Report.
Subsection (6) raises a curious spectre of a Minister suing Minister within the national Government, or a Westminster Minister raising proceedings against a Minister in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. I presume that that would be an exceptional situation, but that remains to be seen.
The duty under subsection (6)(b) is enforceable in civil proceedings in three circumstances. The first of them is “for an injunction”. The second is
“for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988”.
If I ever knew what that was, I am afraid that I have long since forgotten. However, it appears that it refers to a specific performance of a statutory duty, so it would be considerably narrower than an interdict, which is the Scottish term of art equivalent to an injunction. The third circumstance—we return to the issue of “anybody else who knows me”—is
“for any other appropriate remedy or relief.”
That is very widely drafted.
If the Under-Secretary addresses subsection (5), he might consider giving Scots law its proper place in subsection (6). I realise hon. Members might expect a Scot such as me to make such a point.

Andy Burnham: In previous discussions, I undertook to write to the hon. Gentleman in order to set out clearly our position. For the record, it is our understanding that the Bill takes care of his concerns, and that subsection (5)(e) does the job that it is supposed to do. However, I owe him a full explanation on this point. I will endeavour to provide  him with that, and I am confident that it will give him the reassurance that he seeks. I will write to him in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Notification of changes affecting accuracy of Register

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 12, page 10, line 36, at end insert—
‘(1A)For the purposes of ensuring that an individual is able to comply with his duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must at least once every two years send in a prescribed manner to each individual to whom an ID card has been issued at his prescribed address a copy of the information recorded as at a prescribed date about that individual in the Register.’.
I trust that our debate on this clause will be straightforward, as we are unlikely to have enough time to discuss it in detail.
Let me explain the purpose of the amendment. Individuals entered in the register and carrying a card, or having access to one, should get the opportunity to self-verify the information that is recorded every couple of years. I understand, and would not wish to minimise, the cost implications. I know that the Under-Secretary will bring up that topic. I am also conscious of the fact that this information will be sent to every household—eventually, every individual will be part of the scheme—and that we will have to address the need for there to be some element of security when sending this sort of information through the post. However, to verify those details it would not be a bad idea—

It being five minutes past One o’clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [5 July], as amended [12 July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Use of information for verification or otherwise with consent

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 171, in clause 14, page 12, line 31, after “a”, insert “prescribed”.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 160, in clause 14, page 12, line 31, after “with”, insert “all of the”.
No. 161, in clause 14, page 12, line 37, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
No. 54, in clause 14, page 13, line 21, leave out subsection (4).

Alistair Carmichael: Amendments Nos. 171 and 160 would have the combined effect of making subsection (1) read: “The Secretary of State may provide a prescribed person with all of the information recorded in an individual’s entry in the Register if—”, and the conditions are laid out in subsection (1)(a) and (b). All the amendments are probing amendments, but they raise matters worthy of consideration. The clause allows others to obtain information held on the database for the purposes of verification. A number of issues arise from the amendments.
Amendment No. 171 would require the Government to introduce regulations on those people for whom information can be provided. That was considered by the Committee when it debated the last Bill. My reason for bringing it to the Committee for consideration again is that there is some merit not necessarily in excluding people from the provision of information under the clause—I can see that that would be problematic—but in providing regulations that would put in safeguards for the sake of people with learning difficulties, for example. There could be provisions for their consent to be given. That is one example, coming almost from the top of my head, of the sort of provision that I would expect such regulations to contain. Prescription would be a useful tool for the Government and would contribute to transparency, which is not evident at the moment.
What would be required by way of consent? My concern is that consent would end up being given almost unwittingly. I think of the situation every time I hire a car, as I do from time to time. I initial the form in three places and sign at the bottom. One of these days I shall leave myself sufficient time to read the form so that I know what I am signing. I very rarely do that. If consent is to be given, I am concerned that that should be done in an express and unambiguous way.

Nick Palmer: We have returned to something that was discussed when we debated other clauses. During our discussions on clause 3, the Committee decided, against the hon. Gentleman’s advice, to allow some voluntary information, such as the name of the next of kin or blood group, on to the register. Given that decision, does he consider it appropriate for people to be allowed to authorise someone to look at the register by the equivalent of a donor card, along the lines of, “I authorise you in an emergency to look at the register”?

Alistair Carmichael: Perhaps I have not made myself clear, but such a provision is not quite relevant to my line of argument. However, it is a fair point, especially if it relates to information that has been provided voluntarily. We are dealing with the manner in which that information can be accessed, and by whom, and what must be done to ensure that the privilege of access is not undermined or abused.
The proposed deletion of subsections (2), (3) and (4) allows the Minister to place on record the effect of such provisions. I am aware that there are implications for the operation of the Data Protection Act 1998, which  will come into play under the clause. It will be sufficient for him to give us a brief outline of the Government’s intention.

Patrick Mercer: Amendment No. 54 revolves around the concept of consent, which is important in respect of the idea of the register and the card. The hon. Gentleman made much of the going on that, so I shall waste the Committee’s time no further.

Tony McNulty: I take issue with the last point of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). He has not wasted our time on every occasion. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) to his place. However, it appears that we will not be enjoying the delights of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Perhaps he has flashed and gone, with the flash-and-go ID card system.
I appreciate the brevity of the hon. Members for Newark and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), but we are deliberating serious points, a few of which I shall deal with in passing before dealing with the substance of the provision. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about learning difficulties and vulnerable groups. We have clearly said that elements will be put in place to deal with initial applications, the processes that must be gone through to be on the register, and consent. Of course, the amendments touch on the notion of consent, but we will be better served if we have a fuller debate on then when discussing the next set of amendments, because they go to the heart of the matter more readily than this group does.
As the hon. Gentleman suggests, amendment No. 171 would mean that the Secretary of State could provide information only to prescribed persons. That is a fair matter to raise and it would mean that anyone who uses the verification service to check the validity of an ID card produced as proof of identity would have to be prescribed in regulations. That is an unnecessary bureaucratic step.
The basis of the clause is to provide individuals with the choice of when and where to provide their ID as proof of identity and for the individual to be in a position to consent to, or not consent to, the provision of an ID card for a bank, building society or another organisation for verification against the national identity register including, by the by, car hire. When the hon. Gentleman said that, I whispered to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that perhaps hiring a helicopter would be a more likely scenario than hiring a car in his constituency.
The scheme contains substantial safeguards about those to whom information may be provided. As the hon. Gentleman will know, subsection (5) provides for regulations to be introduced on how an application can be made for information confirming the validity of  an ID card, or for other pertinent information, such as the address of the cardholder. Subsection (6) already contains the power to require businesses or other organisations to which information is provided to register prescribed particulars and to be approved by the Secretary of State. Thus we will be able to set up a system of accreditation, to ensure that only approved organisations can check ID cards against the register. That is a far more efficient way of readily, and rightly, limiting who is given authority to use the verification service than prescribing such matters in the Bill.
The Bill provides for a power to ensure that information to verify an ID card will be provided to approved organisations only. Also, clause 41(6) makes it clear that the regulations can put conditions on the grant and approval of that accreditation. Approval can be suspended or withdrawn if, for example, there is reason to suppose that a business has been making checks on ID cards without the holder’s consent. I do not think it necessary to go further and require each and every organisation to be prescribed. That would be unduly bureaucratic and overweeningly centralist—as we would expect from the Liberal Democrats. I am only joking; the hon. Gentleman should ignore that.
Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 would allow the Secretary of State to provide all the information on the register, with the consent of the individual, and would remove the restrictions on provision of information under subsections (2) and (3). That is quite strange and goes too far. The hon. Gentleman himself alluded to the provision allowing an individual, under the Data Protection Act 1998, to secure the information held about him at any stage. That goes to the heart of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newark, too.
Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 would remove an important safeguard that was explicitly included following comments made about the draft Bill by a range of organisations and individuals. They wanted to ensure that organisations would be provided only with information that was relevant to verifying the identity of the individual or customer. Under the building blocks of the Bill, the verification service is pertinent only to the front end of the data—that is, those pieces of data necessary to verify someone’s ID. We do not want organisations climbing all over an individual’s entire set of data, or going fishing in the database. Thus subsection (2), which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wants to amend, excludes the provision of all the information held under the scheme. That is much more about ensuring the integrity of the register than it is about the individual’s identity. We are talking about recorded history, registration and ID card history, and the validating information provided by the individual.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Tony McNulty: It was remiss of me not to have said earlier that we also note the continuing absence of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I did not want him to feel left out. I hope that between now and the end of the debate he may pop back in to see us, for which we will be grateful.
I was saying that it is right to limit those data that organisations—suitably accredited, rather than being prescribed in the Bill—can have verified. Records and information about the security dimensions of the entry and so on are not germane to verifying someone’s identity.
The Bill also provides that an individual’s fingerprints and other biometric information cannot be provided in a verification check under the clause. That is important. Subsection (2)(a) specifically talks about the information necessary for verification. The verification process can be used only to confirm or refuse confirmation that the biometric details provided by the person match those on the register. Contrary to what the amendments would have us do, clause 14 rightly limits the information that can be provided when a business checks someone’s ID with their consent. That, however, does not limit what information individuals can check on their own account.
The amendment proffered by the hon. Member for Newark is far too prescriptive, and provision under the Data Protection Act 1998 already exists, as I said before. That allows the subject access rights under the Act. Clause 14(8) makes it clear that those existing rights are not affected by the power in clause 14. That extant, very permissive power for an individual to seek the data held on the register at any time is far better than the prescriptive suggestion offered in the amendment.
We have had an interesting discussion, and germane rather than trivial points have been raised, which is why I have spent some time on them and taken them seriously on their merits. However, for the reasons I have suggested, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall ensure that the Minister’s good wishes are conveyed to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. He is a new Member of the House and, to use a good Scots term, I do not like to see new Members scunnered too quickly, so I think he deserves a small measure of protection. However, he will rejoin our deliberations when he returns from the north-west of England. Hon. Members will know that he represents a seat there. [Interruption.] Indeed, it used to be represented by a Conservative Member, I seem to recall.

Roger Gale: Order. This is absolutely fascinating, but it has nothing whatever to do with the Identity Cards Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to get on with it.

Alistair Carmichael: Perhaps it is fascinating because it has nothing to do with the Identity Cards Bill.
The Minister has afforded us a full and thorough explanation of the Government’s thinking. I said initially that the amendment is probing: the point has been made and the Minister has given an explanation, so I do not wish to trouble the Committee any further. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in clause 14, page 12, line 34, after “the”, insert “written”.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 172, in clause 14, page 12, line 34, after “the”, insert “informed”.
No. 227, in clause 14, page 12, line 34, after “the”, insert “express”.
No. 52, in clause 14, page 12, line 35, after “otherwise”, insert “in writing”.
No. 173, in clause 14, page 12, line 35, after “otherwise”, insert “explicitly”.
No. 53, in clause 14, page 12, line 36, at end insert
‘and
(c)authority or consent may extend to part only of information.’.
No. 117, in clause 43, page 36, line 29, at end insert—
‘“consent”, in relation to a particular individual, shall mean any freely given specific and informed indication of that individual’s wishes by which he signifies his agreement to the use of his identity card or the access to, or provision of, information contained in his entry in the Register;’.

Patrick Mercer: I shall speak principally to amendments Nos. 51, 52, 53 and 117. No doubt the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will wish to add to that. The amendments are designed to probe the Government further on consent. The clause talks about setting up a service for information verification with the individual’s consent—he or she who is involved initially in the register and later with the extraordinarily cheap card that was referred to earlier.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are simple. To reinforce the concept of consent, we ask that the word “written” and the phrase “in writing” be inserted in lines 34 and 35. I hope that is straightforward; I will say no more about it.
Amendment No. 53 would include an additional phrase, so that the
“authority or consent”
of the individual
“may extend to part only of information.”
Amendment No. 117 refers to clause 43(1) and would insert a new provision.
I hope that this is straightforward. If our purpose is to ensure that individuals involved in the scheme consent to what is going on, these amendments would add a check and a balance to the Government’s proposals by ensuring that we accept that consent is  present only when the individual has signed off a form, signed a certificate or physically ensured that he knows what is going on.
I fear that I am labouring the point a little, but it is necessary to do so because we have heard in several debates about individuals who are disadvantaged, disabled or not in full control of their faculties. It is important that the Government understand that consent needs to be given in writing. Without that, there is room for error and for a lack of proper understanding. Only with the imposition of a requirement for a written document can we be certain. I know the Minister will say that going down this route would involve added expense, but, as the question of consent is at the heart of the clause, I think it would be justified.

Alistair Carmichael: Amendments Nos. 172, 227 and 173 stand in my name. The effect of amendments Nos. 172 and 227 would be largely the same. The history is that I had already tabled the former when I received a briefing from the Law Society of Scotland on the point, which suggested using “express” rather than “informed”. Always having one eye to the future, and to the possibility that I might again have to rely on the good will of the Law Society of Scotland to earn my living, I thought I might as well take on its amendment. Dare I say it, the Law Society’s form of words is preferable, as “express” is more workable than “informed”, but both make the same point—namely, that we should not allow access to be given in a tick-box manner.
It is already fairly well established that, in relation to some aspects of access to such information, an explanation must be given to the person giving consent in express terms—he is given a form and told what will be the effect of signing it. Most people go on to sign it none the less. However, the process highlights the importance of the information held on the database and the restriction of access to it, and serves to eliminate the possibility that giving consent to access to such information will be allowed to become routine. The strictest possible rules should be put in place to ensure that access is given only with express consent.

Tony McNulty: Again, we are considering important amendments that go to the heart of the issues at play in the clause. As hon. Gentlemen have suggested, the amendments would, in their various ways, make it a requirement for an individual to give particular types of consent before the Secretary of State provided information to organisations wanting to verify their identity. We take on board the issues at the heart of the amendments, but they are dealt with in other ways.
Amendments Nos. 173 and 117 define consent as something that is explicit and informed. On balance, we do not consider the amendments to be necessary. We think that it is self-explanatory that consent for a check to be made on the register must be freely given by a person who understands that his card or, as the case may be, his biometric information, is being used to verify his identity. We do not consider the term “consent” when used in this context to be ambiguous  and thus to require a statutory definition, especially in the context of strong limitations on the data available for that verification process and some of the other elements in the Bill, which I will discuss in a moment.
It is incumbent on the Government, as and when this process is introduced, albeit on a voluntary basis in the first instance, to make clear to people how it will work; its benefits, both in the voluntary capacity and subsequently in terms of the compulsory registration elements; how those elements are to be enforced; their rights concerning who can have access to the verification process, not the data; and—to hark back to the previous group of amendments—how an individual can access the data that are stored about them under the Data Protection Act 1998. I agree that that education and awareness process should be gone through as a scheme of such importance is undertaken, but we do not need to define “consent” in the Bill.
 Amendment No. 172, tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, would make it a requirement that an application for the provision of information is with the “informed” authority of the individual. Amendment No. 227 would require the authority to be “express”. Again, in the context of what I just said about consent, it should be taken as read that authority means a freely given and informed authority. I should also mention that under clause 14(5)(a) there is a power to make provision by regulations as to
“how an authority for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) is to be given”.
In that provision, and elsewhere, we can be explicit about what things mean for more vulnerable groups, such as those with learning disabilities and others. That is a fair and serious point.
Amendment No. 53 would mean that an individual could choose to consent to the provision of any part of the information falling in subsections (2) and (3). We resist that, because, as I have said, the clause already sets out a limited list of information that may be provided in response to a verification application. We are not talking about all 51 assorted items, many of them internal to the machine and the process, being readily available, as well as the biometrics for the verification process. There is a power to make regulations to impose further restrictions if necessary. As I have said, it is our intention that by virtue of the accreditation process provided for in clause 14(6) organisations will be provided only with information that supports their business need—that is to say, a limited part of the individual’s entry as permitted under clause 14(1).
 Those safeguards, limitations and definitions of which data will and will not be available are in place, all wrapped round the notion of consent in the clause. To suggest putting in the Bill one of the various elements of consent is unnecessary and, dare I say it, otiose. As and when we return to these matters, perhaps at a later stage of the parliamentary process but as early as permissible, I will try to give the Committee sight of at least the headline and framework of the regulations under clause 14(5) that will define authority. That, rather than unnecessary  amendments to the Bill, may be the way to allay fears about consent and authority. I take the same stance on amendments Nos. 51 and 52 and the notion of written consent. For all those reasons and because of the assurances that I have given, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Patrick Mercer: I hope that the Minister will forgive me—my mind wandered for a moment. [Interruption.] No, the Minister was not being otiose; it is simply that I was distracted by something else.
I believe that the Minister gave an assurance that those aspects of consent will become clearer as we proceed through the rest of the Bill and to other amendments. If I am wrong, I shall be grateful if the Minister will correct me.

Tony McNulty: I was saying that, as and when I could during the course of the Bill’s parliamentary process, I would try to give the Committee at least our first thoughts—an outline—of what the regulations about the nature of, and relationship between, authority and consent would entail, and that that might allay the fears that prompted the amendments in the first place.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. On the basis of that assurance and after having considerably delved into the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 176, in clause 14, page 13, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 177, in clause 14, page 13, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

Alistair Carmichael: It had to happen eventually that we would seek to delete “may” and insert “shall”. We have reached our eighth sitting, so we did well to resist the temptation thus far. This is a classic probing amendment that seeks to tease out information from the Minister, although it would have made sense to put in “shall” rather than “may” in the first place.
Amendment No. 176 is about the power in subsection (5) to make regulations—the Minister just referred to them—that are subject to the negative resolution procedure. They will describe how an authority is to be given, the persons who can make an application and in what circumstances, and how the application may be made. The Bill should make it a requirement that the regulations be in place before such access is allowed. In theory, regardless of the practical situation, the Bill would allow that not to be the case.
Amendment No. 177 would make the same change for subsection (6), which is a more serious provision. It enables an accreditation scheme to be established so that only those organisations that have been approved can make checks on the ID cards of individuals who have consented to verification checks against the register. Subsection (6) states that the regulations may include the requirement that, to be provided with  information, the person must first have registered certain details with the Secretary of State, that that person and the applicant for the information are approved in the prescribed manner and that the equipment that is used is accredited. Again, the regulations should be made before any such scheme is put in place, and there should be no room for doubt about that. I know that the Minister will tell us that that will be done in practice. The amendment would simply put it beyond doubt. It gives the Minister an opportunity to tell us whether he has yet applied his mind to how subsection (6) will operate on an ongoing basis. What checks will be made to ensure that those who have been accredited continue to act in a way that is consistent with the undertakings that they have given, and that they are not abusing or seeking to abuse the system?

Tony McNulty: Passing rapidly over the desire or otherwise to dwell on “must” or “may” versus “shall”, some fair points have emerged. We fully intend to make regulations under subsections (5) and (6), but we would like the flexibility of “may” rather than “shall”, which to all intents and purposes in law equals “must”.
During the design and procurement phase, other ways may have been found to secure the accreditation of organisations, equipment and other elements. As a result, even though there would be no need to accredit some elements, we would have to produce regulations if the amendments were accepted, despite the fact that what they sought to achieve had been achieved by other means. That is the only reason why we want the flexibility of “shall” rather than “may”.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is entirely normal not to be that prescriptive. I assure him that we intend to make regulations under subsections (5) and (6), ensuring in all cases that we have the consent of the individual and that the organisations making checks on the register are suitably accredited. The form of that accreditation may be achieved by other means than regulation, and the provisions would leave the door open—but no more than that.
We may secure what is needed other than by regulation—perhaps through contract compliance, monitoring or other elements. It is nothing sinister. People may say that the hairs on the back of their neck stand up when Ministers say that there is nothing sinister, but there is not. That flexibility is perfectly normal, and we would prefer to retain it, at least during the parliamentary process. If we are lucky when we come to the tail end of the process, we may be able to say that we do not need those subsections because that which we sought through regulation has been achieved through other means.
The provision is in the interests of good, flexible, responsive law, but from our current perspective, we fully intend to go down the route of regulation, which is why the provision is included in the Bill. In that context and given the generous spirit in which I have responded, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Alistair Carmichael: You must know by now, Mr. Gale, that there are not many things in life of which I am particularly proud. Pride can be a burden. However, I am proud to say that I have never yet divided a Committee on a question of “may” against “shall”. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in clause 14, page 14, line 2, at end add—
‘(9)If an individual applies to the Secretary of State for the provision to himself of all or any information recorded in his entry in the Register, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to supply to the individual all such information requested.’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 222, in clause 37, page 31, line 28, at end insert
‘apart from applications from the individual to whom the information relates’.

Patrick Mercer: Simply put, amendment No. 55 would add another subsection to the end of clause 14; I hope that it will underline the concept of consent and make the clause a little easier to understand.
Amendment No. 222 would add to clause 37, which is headed “Fees in respect of functions carried out under Act”. Clause 37(1)(d) states that
“applications for the provision of information contained in entries in the Register”.
The amendment would add the words
“apart from applications from the individual to whom the information relates”.
I hope that that is clear.
We hope that the amendments will require the Secretary of State to supply to the individual any information on the register that the individual requires about him or herself. On top of that, the individual could not be charged for asking for that information.
On consent, we believe that, if the amendments were made, the Secretary of State would be hard pushed to fly in the face of the consensual nature of the measure by saying, “No”. If anyone requires information, other than the individual, it will be specified, but if the individual himself wants that information, he must have it. On top of that, it must be provided free of charge.
I understand that there will, of course, be a cost provision. However, given the nature of the rest of the clause, which is an important one, if consent is to be strengthened and underlined, amendments Nos. 55 and 222 would make things clearer. If they are put in the Bill, the nature of consent will be underscored.

Tony McNulty: The Bill covers many of the points that the hon. Gentleman seeks to address in the amendments. As I said, clause 14(8) is about reinforcing the protection of an individual’s rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. It says clearly that how we limit information in clause 14 for the verification process does not impinge on an individual’s right to have access to that data under Data Protection Act provision.
The hon. Gentleman seeks to go beyond DPA provision, especially in amendment No. 55. For reasons that I will come to, we think that that goes too far. If the amendments are about securing an individual’s rights under the DPA, they are secured in the Bill by clause 14(8). The amendment goes further, by suggesting that anyone should have a right to all the information on them. That is explicitly stated in the amendment.
That would go beyond what is provided for in the DPA. It would, for example, include information that was provided to the police as part of an ongoing investigation into a serious crime. Under the terms of the amendment, that information needs to be available to an individual, because that would be recorded in paragraph 9 of schedule 1 as part of the information held on that individual. It would not be appropriate, or in the public interest, to reveal that fact to the individual under investigation.
We are, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I said, considering giving individuals secure internet access to their record. I take the point that, the quicker we can get an individual to have sight of data held on him on request, the better for all concerned under the terms of the DPA.

Ben Wallace: I take the Minister’s point on the disclosure of paragraph 9 information to the individual. It would not be appropriate for an individual who is or who has recently been under investigation to see that the serious crime body or one of the security services had requested information about him or her.
However, does the Minister think that, at some stage, the information should be allowed to the individual? Some of the Minister’s colleagues have had access to their files from the 60s or 70s, when they were under consideration by the services. Someone might ask, “Why did they ask for that information from 20 or 30 years ago?” Will the Minister consider that option?

Tony McNulty: I was 10 in 1968, so I hope that MI5 and MI6 do not have too much on me from the glory days of the 60s, although I have not asked. That might be worth looking into.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but it is not for the Bill to make such provision and, even if it were, it would not be secured by the amendment. However, it is appropriate to consider how the historical elements in paragraph 9, rather than ongoing, live discussions, can be revealed. I happily take the point on those terms, but I would rather consult the assorted authorities on how to frame such a provision than accept the amendment, which is wide open and goes too far.
I concede that there should not be an absolute bar on ever releasing some of the paragraph 9 information, for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has given. I take that point, but the amendment suggests that anything covered by paragraph 9 should be released whenever anyone makes an application. That cannot be right  and, to be fair to the hon. Member for Newark, it cannot be what he sought to achieve with the amendment.
As the hon. Gentleman suggested, amendment No. 222 relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to set a fee for applications for the provision of information. The hon. Gentleman wishes to limit the Secretary of State’s ability to make a charge. We have already rehearsed those arguments—on Tuesday I think, but we are having such fun that all the sittings are rolling together, so I am not sure. We intend that that an individual will be able to check the details of his entry on the register, in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, and information regarding verification requests made against the entry in the previous six to 12 months—hopefully via a secure web portal, free of charge. A full subject access request, in accordance with the 1998 Act, would be subject, as other database searches are, to a reasonable fee allowed for by that legislation, which is currently £10.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I rise to check that clause 14(8) gives a safeguard to individuals enabling them to see and correct what is on the register.

Tony McNulty: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Such questions have come up before—again, I cannot remember precisely when—and we gave a similar assurance then, but I am more than happy to repeat it now.
Our intention is to let an individual look at his database entry on a website for free. Access to the entire database is more appropriately done through the DPA, however, the charge for which is currently set at £10. There will be provision to amend and discuss elements in the data record, which is entirely appropriate. We think, however, that even when the web portal is established the Secretary of the State will need provision on the face of the Bill to charge a fee for access, as per the DPA. The amendment goes far beyond the DPA and, for those reasons and despite the good intentions of the hon. Member for Newark, I ask that it be withdrawn.

Patrick Mercer: Yet again it seems that we will have to throw ourselves on the mercy of the Data Protection Act to ensure that there is access to the information required. I am delighted that the Minister has assured me that individuals will not be charged and I recognise that the fee that he mentioned for larger inquiries seems reasonably modest. Despite that, I would be much happier if the amendment were accepted. I understand what the Minister said about the juxtaposition of the amendment and the Data Protection Act, so in the spirit of trying not to impede the Government any further than we might have done already by even suggesting the amendment, albeit with some reluctance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Power to make public services conditional on identity checks

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 15, page 14, line 9, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
Clause 15(1) states:
“Regulations may make provision allowing or requiring a person who provides a public service to make it a condition of providing the service to an individual that the individual produces—
(a)an ID card”.
That is fine, but paragraphs (b) and (c) add:
(b)other evidence of registrable facts about himself; or
(c)both.”
The clause is difficult to understand. I see how important it is, but it is incongruous and probably rather heavy handed.
There are several problems. First and foremost, which public services does the clause cover? Should I assume from the way in which the Government have framed the clause that I will need my ID card to obtain emergency treatment? I cannot imagine that being the case, but if it were, the Government would already have insisted that carrying the ID card is mandatory. I am content to believe the Minister when he says that that will not happen and that the Government do not intend to make that happen.
Dwelling for a moment on medical services, I can assume only that an ID card would need to be produced for such things as routine, extended and chronic medical care and perhaps dentistry. What else? I hesitate to use the phrase “entitlement card”, but will the Minister provide us with further evidence regarding which services the Government will make available to us only on the production of an ID card?
If my assumption is correct, I am prepared—sort of—to accept the logic of such a provision, despite my dislike and contempt for the whole idea, but I cannot understand why, if an ID card has been demanded so that a service can be provided, we should have to produce an ID card, other evidence of registrable facts about ourselves, or both. Is the Minister implying that I could go to the doctor’s for treatment for, say, a bad back and the doctor could say, “Okay, nice to see you and your bad back again. Let’s have a look at your card,” and if I produced it but the doctor said that it was not good enough, he could ask for more registrable facts to prove that I am the person who came last week? I am glad that I have made the Under-Secretary smile, but I simply do not understand why that is necessary.
Despite my general reservations, I am content that there might be some reason for requiring us to produce the card if we want public services, but what on earth do paragraphs (b) and (c) mean? To my mind, the Government would be well advised to strike them from the Bill. If we are to have the card, the simple statement that the individual must produce it is quite enough. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are needless and otiose and should be struck from the Bill.

Tobias Ellwood: The clause seems to be intended to allay fears about how the card is to be used immediately before it becomes compulsory as the Government wish.
Clause 15(1)(c) questions the integrity of the card itself, because if it is robust enough to prove who a person is, why is there a requirement to produce other identification cards along with that card? In the case of stolen cards, if one card is stolen a whole array of identification cards is likely to be removed at the same time.
How will the card be ratified? Mention has been made of the flash-and-go concept of showing one’s card, which allows one to obtain a service. What services are included? Of the cards in our pockets today, bankcards are the most common. It is not simply a question of showing that card to prove ownership; a process has to take place involving confirmation of details that are separate from the card. That raises the question: how will cards be read? Will the Minister elaborate on that process?
Are we simply to accept that an individual’s production of an ID card, perhaps with a driving licence, is sufficient to enable them to receive the service, or will there be a process of ratification? If so, will there be a reader—a machine that can confirm those details?

Nick Palmer: I do not know whether I can assist the hon. Gentleman, but does he not accept that to cover the possibility that someone might steal the card, it might be necessary to verify that he is the person who is entitled to hold it? He might be asked to provide a fingerprint, for instance, to compare with the card. That is an example in which both elements would be needed without calling the integrity of the card into doubt.

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point which demonstrates how complicated the process could be. If the card is lost, how does one prove one’s identity? How is that done without going back to the original registration unit? My concern is how, on a daily basis, when an individual wants to use services, that can be done efficiently—how it can be proved instantaneously that an individual is the person named on the card. That is why I should like the Minister to explain whether we will go down that route.
Airports are another great example. Would transport be considered one of the services mentioned in the clause? Would cards be used to prove who one was for internal flights? Will we eventually have readers or some form of scanning systems that read the card to confirm who the person is? Although the clause is trying to allay the public’s fear that we will have to carry these cards all the time, if we get to the point at which one cannot enjoy services without having these cards, an obligation or compulsion to carry the card is being introduced by the back door. My other concern  is about where that will lead. The Minister must allay these fears that we will not be able to walk around without these cards.
The Minister has repeatedly said: “Show me in the Bill where it says this, that and the other,” but many of the details are not in the Bill—many are explicitly not included. He tells us that certain provisions will not apply, but tell that to a policeman who in three or four years’ time asks for some form of identification. This is the road we are going down. Everyone will eventually feel obliged to carry their card, even though the law does not specifically say that they have to.

David Drew: I too see the clause as quite important, albeit for different reasons from those that have been outlined. As I said before, I have no problem with the concept of an ID card, but I have a problem with who is likely to have it and who is not likely to have it. The sort of people who would be unlikely to have an ID card are recent entrants to the country, Travellers, or those who for some reason have a fear of authority. It makes some sense, therefore, to consider clause 15(1)(b) carefully, because those people will immediately be disadvantaged if they are trying to access public services. On what basis are the deliverers of public services going to decide whether to make their service available to people? Will that decision be determined by whether those people have a card? That would put the onus on the doctor in accident and emergency, for example. There are various ways in which we can frame the legislation so that there are caveats to allow such people to function, but it needs to be spelled out clearly.

Patrick Mercer: The hon. Gentleman makes some excellent points. When making my point about health care, I assumed that emergency services would not depend on the provision of the card. Where does the hon. Gentleman imagine that the line would be drawn? Where does emergency become non-emergency, and vice versa?

David Drew: I was going to talk about that. It is a difficult question. If someone has toothache, it is an emergency for them, although to a dentist it may be something that can be treated in due course, but if someone has no ID card, they may not get treatment at all. Notwithstanding the fact that these days it is difficult to get a NHS dentist anyway, most dentists are pretty altruistic when it comes to someone who is genuinely suffering—but the clause lays on them the additional burden of whether to treat such a person.
That is not my main point. I want to talk about who will and who will not have a card. I can see the sense of subsection (1)(b) in relation to those without a card. However, it immediately gives rise to two sets of people: those who naturally choose to have and use a card and hand it over to people in public service, and those who either choose not to have a card or do not have access to it. That situation is made more difficult by subsection (1)(c), because if we may now ask people to produce both a card and other registrable details,  who will be asked to give other details? Will they be people who have a card and have to provide it because the onus is on the deliverer of the public service to check the card, which may be insufficient and more proof is required for the checking mechanism?
I question whether paragraphs (b) and (c) are necessary. Paragraph (b) needs at least to be made more overt, but there is no advantage in including paragraph (c). I am interested to hear what the Minister says.

Roger Gale: Order. This is becoming a stand part debate. I have no problem with that—I have always made that plain—but we can do this on the understanding that we only have one stand part debate and do not hold one at the end of this set of clauses. If Members consider that it is convenient to broaden the issue from amendment No. 56 to encapsulate the sentiment behind the whole clause, that is fine. However, please will they understand that I shall not be calling a stand part debate at the end? If they have something to say, they had better say it now.

Alistair Carmichael: In many ways this interesting amendment gets to the heart of the practical operation of the scheme.
For the benefit of hon. Members who do not already know it, let me say that I am unable to hold on to anything. I will inevitably lose my card as soon as I get it. However, I will presumably still be able to see my doctor, and if they have the mechanism for reading a fingerprint, iris or other biometrics, they will read it and say, “What is your name, address and date of birth?” I will give them those details and that would be “other evidence” under paragraph (b). In that case, why do we need the card at all? I suspect that we may be going that way already.
I have some small experience of such things. When I was a solicitor, the first time I visited Barlinnie prison in Glasgow, my fingerprint was taken; presumably, some sort of facial recognition was also involved. To gain access to the visiting quarters thereafter, I placed my hand on a reader, looked at the camera and—bingo!—the door opened. The truly remarkable thing is that they let me out again as well. In time, the identity card may become redundant.

Roger Gale: Does Mr. Wallace wish to speak?

Ben Wallace: Yes.

Roger Gale: All hon. Members have to understand that if they wish to be called, they must rise. It is not up to the Chair to decide on a whim that somebody shall speak.

Ben Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Gale. Some might say, because of my stature, that I am still sitting down while I am on my feet. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) making comments from a sedentary position. He was clearly enjoying the previous debate from the inside of his eyelids.
It is important that the provision of public services is addressed. Public services are different from public authorities. I know that an attempt is made to define  public services in clause 43, but at that point we see the need to carry an ID card creeping in through the back door.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) talked about obligation. Obligation is different from compulsion, but it spreads very quickly. Hon. Members might not be aware that a person does not have to have a credit card to access or use one. If they can remember the 12-digit number, they can walk into a retailer and use it. The banks do not require the card, but allow the retailer to decide whether to use it to verify that the person is the account holder. The same goes for a cheque book. If I had any money, I could write a cheque on a blank piece of paper—“To the bearer”—it would effectively be an IOU.
Today we take it for granted that we have to have certain things with us when in fact we do not. That is because of custom. For example, we do not have to produce driving licences and insurance documents for seven days. However, we have all got used to the fact that if we are pulled over by a policeman, it is much easier to have our documents on us.
When I was patrolling in Northern Ireland, if we stopped someone who did not have a driving licence, we certainly looked harder and longer at the vehicle and the person, even though that person did not have to carry his licence. That might not have been right, but it meant that more and more people felt obliged to carry theirs. Over the years, people were—

Tobias Ellwood: Conditioned.

Ben Wallace: Exactly. They were conditioned to that process, and we should be aware of that. When that is tied in with the provision of a public service, it involves a very wide remit. In some areas, such as the Western Isles or the highlands of Scotland, air travel is sometimes the only option. Perhaps the provision will be construed to mean that everyone getting on a plane from the Western Isles must produce their ID card. In other parts of the world, there is clearly a choice. I think that the Minister said that there would be about 45 locations where one would go to register for a card or get a new one.

Tony McNulty: Seventy.

Ben Wallace: Not a huge number across the mass of the country, then. Some people will have to take a long journey to get their ID cards. I anticipate having to go to the centre of Manchester, which is some 65 or 70 miles away. I would have to take a number of public services to get there.
In one sense, I understand why the Government want the option of both a card and registrable facts, but we know that having an ID card will soon become compulsory. That is the stated aim, and people will quickly be obliged to carry the card. I know that the Minister will say that that is nonsense, that there will be no compulsion and that that is a canard. The reality  is that the obligation will start and grow, however, and before we know it, we shall all have to carry the card. We should be aware that that will be the end result.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said that he did not have a problem with compulsion in principle and suggested that if the system is to be effective, people should carry their cards all the time. There is an argument for that position, as the civil liberties debate also involves how much information cards can carry.
On the amendments to clause 15—this also applies to other amendments that we have yet to consider—provision of public services will become a difficult issue. I understand people’s concerns on A and E access. Of course, no doctor is going to look at someone who is dying at their feet, and say, “I’m not going to give you public service provision”, but what if that person is then diagnosed with cancer and they have to be referred? The doctor could be dealing with someone from the Traveller community, such as an Irish resident, or someone who does not want to have an ID card, has not got round to getting one or has lost one. The doctor would then be in the difficult position of making a referral that was outside the emergency remit, but essential to life nevertheless. We can see how that problem could arise.

David Drew: According to GPs in my constituency, there is a difficult issue—to be fair, the Government have begun to address it—in respect of people who come to this country specifically to use the NHS. We all know that that has been an untold story, even though the Government have begun to address it, as I said. In a sense, that is an argument for the ID card, but the problem with clause 15 is that the individual must produce either an ID card or something else. It is unclear what the Government are trying to say.

Ben Wallace: I certainly concede to the hon. Gentleman that, on the one hand, people are trying to prevent health tourists—I think that that is the phrase. On the other hand, we are talking about the services that he, I and our constituents have a right to access, whether or not they have an ID card, as British citizens resident in this country who contribute through the tax system. It is not easy to recognise from a person’s face the difference between such people. A lot of thought has to be given to that.
On the level of identification, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East asked how and at what stage verification takes place. If someone who enters their local railway station is required to produce an ID card to access that public service, will a flash-and-go approach be used to test the biometrics, or will there be a little more? How clear will the photographs on the cards be? I had two Army identity cards—actually I had three, but I broke one, or put it through the washer—the first of which was replaced by the second. The photographs quickly became out of date. One has only to look in “Dod’s” or The Times “Guide to Westminster” to see that some MPs are fond of their school photograph, now that they are over 40. I am guilty of such a feeling, although I have not tried to use such a photo.
If we rely on flash-and-go for the provision of public services, what is the point of ID cards for general use among the population? They will constantly have to be updated. Either the private sector will have to start paying for they card—for example, Virgin Rail will have to pay for the readers—or the public sector will have to start using deeper technologies to interrogate the card and the system. That is when costs will rise.

Andy Burnham: Amendment No. 56, which would delete paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1), would effectively ensure that only an ID card would qualify as proof for a public service. That would create the scenario that Opposition Members seem to fear so much—the flash-and-go society would certainly be with us, because there would be no alternative to having an ID card. If we limited the clause in the way that the amendment suggests, public services would not be able to perform biometric checks, or checks using registrable facts such as the registration number, against the card or the register when checking the identity of the applicant. In essence, under the amendment, provision of a service could be linked only to the card, not to the identity held on the register. That is the problem with it.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East asked a question about how cards will be read. That question allows me to provide some useful background on the clause. The precise details of the process of checking identity will be for the public service concerned to determine in light of regulations made under clause 15, but let me lay out the stages of that process and say how it could be carried out. There could be a visual check of the card and no more. There could be a check of the card alongside verification against the register, involving use of a personal identification number, if the service concerned had a particular kind of reader. In the most extreme scenario, there could be verification against the register using biometrics. All those possibilities need to be available to public services before we are in a position to make the provision of public services conditional on identity checks as is set out in the clause.
If we accepted the amendment, it would remove our ability to check in cases in which someone did not have their card—for instance, if it was forgotten or lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned the dentist. In such a case, the amendment would be limiting in a way that all hon. Members seem to fear. If people did not have their card because they had lost it, or because it had been through the wash with the person’s Army kit or whatever, it would be difficult to get treatment for toothache. It would be a limiting factor if only the card could be accepted, whereas if someone could provide their PIN, registration number or a biometric instead, the loss of the card would not matter.

Tobias Ellwood: Interesting information came out just now. There was a suggestion that certain public services will have access to the register, and indeed to a method of reading the biometrics, if I understood the  Minister correctly. If that is the case, can he elaborate on the type of public services that he envisages having that facility?

Andy Burnham: The type of public services would be laid out in regulations, and it is not for Ministers to dictate what they are, as that would be for the House to decide. However, the kinds of services involved are those that we have been talking about throughout our consideration of the Bill. They are principally health services, which have been alluded to throughout the debate. Benefits are another example of a service in which people would expect such facilities to be used, and where we would want a higher standard of identity check. People would want the ability to use the card and/or other means of verifying identity in those cases. So those are the kind of services that we have in mind.

Ben Wallace: On health provision, the United Kingdom has, effectively, a treaty with other European countries, and that produced the E110, the health travel form—[Hon. Members: “E111.”] I hear lots of suggestions, but I think that the Committee gets the gist; I mean the national insurance certificate for us abroad. In return, European citizens have their health costs predominantly met by the NHS if they are in an emergency situation or are gravely ill while they are over here. Let me explain the issue. Currently, Britain just assesses a rough pot of money that it then exchanges. It does not do things on a per-use basis; it simply estimates that France should get X amount of money and pays that across to the French health service—and likewise for Germany. In this system, when a European citizen comes forward and says, “I am a European citizen so I do not have to have an identity card here,” how will you manage to deal with that? Under our system, you might say we cannot treat him because—

Roger Gale: Order. I have two points to make: first, I would not do that at all; and, secondly, the hon. Gentleman’s contribution is meant to be an intervention rather than a speech.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman raises the important point of how EU nationals will be treated under this system when there is compulsion. For the purposes of the Bill, EU nationals will be treated in exactly the same way as British nationals. There will be no difference; if they are here for longer than three months, they will have to produce a card to access services without charge. That is laid out clearly. It is possible that EU nationals will also have to produce further information to verify who they are, such as their ID card for their own country. Other foreign nationals might have to produce other information such as a work permit number; obviously, an EU national would not have to do that. That is why the clause is drafted in a way that provides flexibility for the system. An EU citizen who was visiting our country would have to produce their version of the E111 form. Therefore, the current situation would not be materially altered. Things would carry on in the same way. Of course, once compulsion comes in, everybody will be subject to the same requirements.
If Members want examples of why flexibility is necessary, I can provide them. It is right for the Department of Health to be able to take a biometric reading if somebody arrives unconscious at an accident and emergency department; that would help medical staff to identify that person, when they otherwise might not have any easy or ready means of doing so. The amendment would limit those staff to trying to find a card on that person, but it is in everyone’s interests for the emergency and health services to have the ability to determine identity without relying solely on the card.
The hon. Member for Newark made a valid point about emergency treatment. The Government have made it clear all along—I hope that our discussions about some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), which we are about to address, will back this up—that production of a card will never be required for access to emergency services or if somebody has a life-threatening condition.

Patrick Mercer: I hope that I do not anticipate the Under-Secretary, but will he deal with the intervention that I made on the hon. Member for Stroud about where the line is drawn between emergency and non-emergency situations?

Andy Burnham: That, I would guess, is for health services to determine. Patients present by different means: some of them self-present, others present via an elective admission and others present from under an ambulance’s blue light. It will be for the health service to determine whether to require an identification check. I stress again, however, that access to emergency services and emergency health treatment will never be dependant on the production of a card. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud a full reassurance on that point.

Tobias Ellwood: I do not wish to labour the point, but I point out that we are just learning about the extent to which biometric readers—a phrase I use for want of a better word—will be introduced. The examples that have been cited in this debate suggest that biometric readers will be used in a number of years’ time to confirm identity in our hospitals and, under that rationale, also in our police stations. What would happen if someone was arrested? If the police wanted to confirm someone’s details or eliminate them from inquiries, it would be an obvious idea to have such readers in the police station as well. Airports have also been mentioned.

Tony McNulty: This is an intervention.

Tobias Ellwood: It is, so I should sit down.

Andy Burnham: What the hon. Gentleman says is true. We do not have in mind the flash-and-go society that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, who I am pleased has deigned to join us, has in mind. Were the card to be the only means available, there  would not be readers, but there would be a heavy reliance on a flash-and-go society. The very installation of those readers in hospitals and police stations will mean people not being required to produce a card.
Under the terms of the Bill, which I hope becomes an Act, people will be able to prove their identity through their biometrics or by producing information that allows confirmation of who they are on the register. If that is what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East fears, let me say that the Government are determined that the Bill, identity cards and the national identity register will help to cut health tourism. That is a key aim of the Bill. If he has a problem with it, that is up to him. It is right that the scheme should bear down on people who want to use our public services without having contributed to them and without having the right to use them. That is a clear aim of the scheme and I make no apology for it.
Questions were raised about the integrity of the card by the hon. Gentleman, which is an important point because it may not be possible to read a card for some reason. We do not want to restrict access to any services if the card develops a problem and becomes unreadable. That is why the flexibility in the clause is important.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about compulsion by the back door, and we shall return to that point later. It is absolutely clear that services may be specified only after the compulsion is put in place. We have already been through the elaborate procedure that both Houses would have to use to approve such a measure before we arrived at that position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised some points, and I hope I have addressed them, particularly with regard to access to health services. It is not the intention to deny access to anyone and we do not want people to deny themselves access because we have placed too great a requirement on the use of the card.
My hon. Friend said that the measure might lead to two classes of people: those with cards and those without. That might be possible. Some people may not carry their card with them because they choose not to do so, but they will still be able to prove who they are when they turn up at A and E, a dental surgery or a GP’s surgery.
Many other people will enjoy the convenience of having the card and they will be able to use it to their own benefit. There may be two classes of people, but that will not necessarily be a problem. Obviously, in this case we envisage a time when there is compulsion—when people are all registered. The integrity of the register and whether it is complete are important, not whether people are carrying cards. The latter question is one of personal choice.

David Drew: May I intervene briefly?

Roger Gale: All interventions are brief.

David Drew: Thank you, Mr. Gale. Is the onus on the individual to apply for a card, not on the state to take that card away? That question is particularly important for groups such as asylum seekers and  Travellers, who will never voluntarily engage in this system. I want to be absolutely clear about what the Under-Secretary is saying. Will the state give a card to people as a right, if they wish to have one? Will the state have any inclination not to give cards to them?

Andy Burnham: No. Nothing changes. The way health services are provided does not change, and the Bill will change nothing for people with residence here. That is the qualification for access to the health service under current law. People with residence and leave to remain—albeit limited and exceptional, in some cases—will still be able to access health services. That will not be changed by the Bill.
Moreover, the Bill will probably enhance the ability of people to access the services quickly, because an immediate check will be made to see whether they are entitled to them. Also, the Bill will clearly help to establish the fact that the illegally resident population will not have access to the services. It will bear down on the illegally resident population, which is a benefit of the system that we propose. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks.
Other concerns were put to me. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) flashed forward to a full flash-and-go society when he said that there will be no great leap until people are required to carry the card. If that is the decision made by Parliament at some point, that is up to Parliament. Nothing in the Bill requires the carrying of the card. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read subsection (3); it could not be clearer. There will be no requirement on people to carry their cards at all times. People may be required to be on the register to access a public service, but they will not be required to carry a card at all times.
A question was asked about referral to an emergency unit from a hospital, but that was dealt with in another response. Provision of emergency services will not be altered. That is a decision made properly by health service staff, who have to decide whether the individual presenting needs emergency treatment.
With those assurances, I shall bring my remarks to a close. Removing paragraphs (b) and (c) would create a restrictive position in which cards would probably have to be carried at all times. There would be no other way to prove identity, which would create an over-reliance on the card that was not desirable, sensible or helpful to the individual. Given that we should bear the convenience and choice of individuals in mind, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Ben Wallace: I am sorry to return to the point, but I shall do my best to be brief. It is important to ask the Under-Secretary to expand on the issue covered by the E111 system. At an earlier sitting, I referred to the 25.4 million tourists from overseas—a British Tourist Authority figure, not a Home Office figure—and Ministers produced a slightly different figure.
Health tourism comes pretty quick when people reach this country. They come when they are pregnant; they come from European countries if they are uninsured and have no cover. Under the current  treaty, treaty members give money to the United Kingdom to compensate. That is not based on what happens per head; it is not based on the fact that this year, for example, more people from Germany used the NHS. It is a basic sum. I do not understand, therefore, how providing identity cards will massively cut health tourism by individuals from the European Union. Those who are pregnant—asylum seekers included—will still arrive.
Within the three-month period, people with no obligation to have an identity card will come to use health services. The number of such people will not be greatly reduced. I accept that people with long-term conditions might want to take advantage of the health system, but the Under-Secretary said that they will have to produce their own version of an E111 to gain access. That is true, but producing a version of an E111 does not mean that the NHS will then ring up the insurance company in France and say, “Your patient has cost us £1,000, so we want £1,000 please.”
Let us consider the position of an individual who comes here and says, “Well, I am not insured, but I am a French citizen.” At present, I believe that such people are covered under the E111 system because of the lump-sum arrangement to which I referred. I ask the Under-Secretary to bring back to the Committee details of the E111 system.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is describing problems with the E111 system pertaining to health treatment, but the provision involves the production of an ID card to access public services. The operation of the E111 system and the reciprocal agreements that this country has with other countries are entirely separate from that.

Ben Wallace: The Government say that one reason for having an identity card system is that it will deter people from coming to this country as health tourists, but that system is removed from the identity system so it will not deter them. If people have a card and they say, “I am who I am, but I am French,” that will not prevent them from having access to some NHS services, because our NHS does not operate a system of a per patient, per head refund as is done in other European countries.
How will identity cards prevent NHS tourism? That, the Government have said, is one reason for us needing identity cards. That is all I ask. This is not about saying, “This changes the system”; it is about saying, “Why will an ID stop NHS health tourism?” I hope the Under-Secretary will deal with that.

Patrick Mercer: I take your points, Mr. Gale, about the stand part element of our debate, and your judgement is of course correct. This wide-ranging discussion has unveiled a series of facets to amendment No. 56, which does not, on the face of it, look too harmful.
The Under-Secretary has been forthright and clear, but the fact remains that we, in line with the hon. Member for Stroud, have grave reservations about what he has said. For instance, I take his point about where an emergency starts, but that is not for the likes of us to dictate; it is for the NHS. I can see all sorts of  difficulties cropping up with this provision, particularly with people making themselves appear much sicker than they really are to get service and medical attention. That will also involve various other public services.
On that basis, and despite the eloquent defence of the clause, we cannot accept the rejection—if that is right—of the amendment. So, with your consent, Mr. Gale, and that of the Committee, I shall call a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 7, Noes 8.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Nick Palmer: I beg to move amendment No. 194, in clause 15, page 14, line 19, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (3A)”.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 195, in clause 15, page 14, line 24, at end add
‘The provisions of subsection 3(b) shall not extend to treatment in Accident and Emergency facilities within NHS hospitals’.

Nick Palmer: The previous discussion extensively covered the ground of these amendments, so this is the lightest of probes. I am happy to accept the Under-Secretary’s copper-bottomed assurance that accident and emergency services will not be subject to the provision of an identity card. I should just like to chip in my response to earlier comments.
My constituents are extremely keen that long-term non-emergency medical services are not provided to people who have not contributed. While I appreciate that there may be reciprocal arrangements if that is not possible, that is not a reason not to make progress. I approve of the principle, but I expect to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Garnier rose—

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) has to make a decision. Either he wants to press the amendment to a Division or he does not. If he does not, I cannot call anyone else. It is entirely up to him.

Nick Palmer: In that case, and in view of the extensive discussion, I shall not proceed any further.

Edward Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 15, page 14, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3)Failure to produce without reasonable excuse an identity card to a police constable reasonably requiring production shall be a summary offence punishable with 6 months imprisonment or a fine or both.’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in clause 15, page 14, line 24, at end add—
‘(4)Nothing in this section authorises the making of regulations the effect of which would be to require a British citizen to carry or produce an ID card before such time as when all British citizens are required by virtue of section 6 to be entered in the Register.’.
No. 59, in clause 18, page 16, line 32, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (2A)”.
No. 60, in clause 18, page 16, line 41, at end insert—
‘(2A)Subsection (2) does not authorise the imposition of such condition or requirement in relation to or on a British citizen before such time as when all British citizens are required by virtue of section 6 to be entered in the Register.’.
No. 61, in clause 18, page 16, line 41, at end insert—
‘(2B)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further cases in which such a condition or requirement may be imposed in relation to or on an individual.’.

Edward Garnier: It is just as well that the hon. Member for Broxtowe did not press the previous amendment to a Division, because I was having difficulty finding proposed new subsection (3A), to which his amendment referred. I am unsure whether it is to be found any more than proposed new subsection (2A) referred to in amendment No.59 is to be found. He saved himself a little trouble.

Roger Gale: Order. As the hon. and learned Gentleman fully understands, that is immaterial because the amendment was withdrawn. In fact, there was a printer’s error.

Edward Garnier: Let me return to the amendments. To use the expression of the hon. Member for Broxtowe, we seek some copper-bottomed assurances from the Government about the compulsory nature—or absence of it—of the identity card scheme.
Amendment No. 57 would replace subsection (3), which reads:
“Nothing in this section authorises the making of regulations the effect of which would be to require an individual—
(a)to carry an ID card with him at all times; or
(b)to produce such a card otherwise than for purposes connected with an application by him for the provision of a public service, or with the provision of a public service for which he has applied.”
It strikes us that, despite the Under-Secretary’s blandishments, we will increasingly have the flash-and-go society that I have described. People will carry their identity cards as a matter of routine, not because they have to under the Bill, but because it will become a necessity of everyday life. People will not be able to go into a Government office, to access a public service or to do a host of things outside their house unless they are carrying an identity card. If the Under-Secretary is prepared to rest on his fond belief that simply because the Bill does not say that people have to carry the card and because it says that they have to produce it only  within so many days or so many hours at the request of a police officer, he will learn that before very long the practice will be different.
Although it may not be a statutory requirement, carrying the card at all times when out in public will be a practical requirement. It would be intellectually more honest to accept that reality and to make it clear to the public, via the amendment, that that is what will happen and that it is what the Government intend. It is more honest to make carrying the card compulsory in the Bill.
We have described that as function creep and access creep, but it is pretext creep that will get us. The police will invariably invite people to offer up their identity card if they stop them for a legitimate reason, and people will have to go through the inconvenience of going home and going to the police station a few days later. A practice will surely emerge, and members of the public will, in effect, be compelled to go about in public carrying their identity card. I would be interested to hear the reasons for the Government disagreeing with that prediction.
We recently heard from the Australian Attorney-General that the identity card idea fell apart in Australia. Among other reasons for that, he said that it was going to be a false protection and would give a spurious sense of security to the card holder. More to the point, however, it would give a spurious sense of security to a person who wished to inspect the card. The Government need to come clean on both counts about whether they think that that is to be recommended.
On amendment No. 58, if the practicality is that everybody will carry a card, we should all have compulsion on the same date, rather than have several classes of identity card carrier. The Government are trying to persuade us that we will not be compelled to carry it, but we will be compelled to have one. We should come to terms with the fact that we are going to have to have one and will be compelled, in real terms, to carry it. If that is the practical consequence, there should be some fairness and justice, and we should all arrive at that position at the same time.
I shall ignore amendment No. 59, for the same reasons that I teased the hon. Member for Broxtowe about. I have yet to find proposed new subsection (2A) on what the Government now call the modification paper, so we do not need to concern ourselves with that. It may well exist, but I have not found it, and I am not going to waste the Committee’s time.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. and learned Gentleman will find subsection (2A) in his own amendment No. 60.

Mark Prisk: Just testing.

Edward Garnier: As my hon. Friend says, I was just checking that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was still with us, and I am glad to say that he is. The point that I was making about proposed new subsection (3A) still holds.
Amendment No. 60 would amend subsection 2(2). Our amendment makes the same fairness and justice point: I do not want to see up to six classes of individuals required at different times both to register and to hold a card. That is the point of that amendment. Amendment No. 61 would add a new subsection (2B). Surely the Government cannot complain about that. The Bill is riddled with vague powers that enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about individuals, designated documents, designated document authorities and so on.
If there were any doubt about the fairness and justice of the earlier amendments, amendment No. 61 would make it clear that we are not leeching any power of the Secretary of State. Indeed, we are doing him a service by providing him with what is probably the 61st regulation-making power in the Bill. It flows entirely with the grain of the Government’s policy. For the life of me, I cannot think for a moment that they will wish to oppose any of the amendments.

Alistair Carmichael: I added my name to amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60. I presume that I was in a happy frame of mind at the time. I have now read them again, and although I agree with the general thrust of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument that compulsion should be done once and for all and that all should be compelled at the same point, in retrospect I am not that keen on conceding the point of compulsion at all. I presume that I signed up in a mood of good humour, but I would not wish to be seen to be too enthusiastic in my support for him.

Andy Burnham: On the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, I should say that he clearly has a philosophical difficulty with the Bill. However, I do not think that many Labour Members or most of the public have a problem in principle with a society in which people have an identity card or are on the register.
I shall not shirk from saying it: yes, I envisage a time when there will be widespread use of identity cards to access public and private services. That is the purpose of the Bill. I am happy to confirm that for the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not understand—

Edward Garnier: Let me tell the Under-Secretary something that I do not understand. He said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to create circumstances in which people would, as a matter of routine, access private and public services by means of the identity card. That is not a statutory purpose.

Andy Burnham: They would do that because they wanted to use the convenience of the identity card to access services or prevent the fraudulent use of services, given that the public services could perform checks against the register. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have a problem with that. I do not. It is the very intention and purpose behind the Bill.
With that in mind, I fail to understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled amendment No. 57, which would bring to reality the situation that he has  repeatedly seemed to fear so much. Why place in the Bill a particular requirement to enable a police constable to demand the production of an identity card? He spoke at length about how that will happen in practice, but his amendment would extend police powers.
I have lost count of the number of times that the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed a fear about that, and I am surprised that he seeks to insert such a measure. People will know that they are under no obligation to present a card. That may not stop a police officer from asking, but that is the case at the moment. A police officer can ask for a form of identity if he or she has cause to stop or arrest somebody. The Bill does not extend police powers, but amendment No. 57 would.
With regard to amendment No. 58, I hope that I can reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a good reason why we do not want to accept his form of words. The objectionable phrase is “all British citizens”, because that would make it impossible to require the use of a card unless every citizen of the country was in the scheme. That day might never come—a fact that he may be pleased to learn. It might never be the case that all British citizens are registered. For instance, there are no plans at present for British children or British citizens abroad to register. We may well also consider exempting the very elderly from having to register, because it would not make sense for them to do so; indeed, the hon. Member for Newark mentioned that his mother would not want to do that. We might not want to put very elderly people through the enrolment process. If they did not want to do so, and it would not achieve a great deal, we would not want them to go through it. Those are just three examples of why the phrase “all British citizens” is unhelpful.
Subsection (2)(b) mentions public services that are free of charge. By referring to that specific category of services, we are reserving the right to require the production of the card for a service that is not free of charge. That might be useful where public safety demands a high level of identity check—for example, in relation to applications for firearms certificates. It is therefore important to have flexibility in this area, and that would be explicitly ruled out by the amendment, because its terms are inflexible.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough did not speak a great deal to amendment No. 59, and amendment. No. 60 would have a similar effect to that which I have just outlined, as it would introduce the test of “all British citizens”, which would be neither sensible nor desirable.
On amendment No. 61, we believe that the exemptions in clause 18(2) are sufficient. Paragraph (a) allows for further requirements to be imposed under other legislative powers if that is necessary. We are not  convinced that further exemptions, such as those suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, are needed.
Some hon. Members seem to be envisaging a big-bang introduction of identity cards. In their amendments, they do not envisage an incremental approach to roll-out of the cards, but that is our intention; we want to take the scheme forward incrementally. A lot of the benefits of the identity card scheme will be taken away if all British citizens are required to be registered.
I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Garnier: If the Under-Secretary wishes to use the expression “roll-out,” he should first get the permission of the Minister of State, and, secondly, he should add a general definition of the word somewhere in clause 43(1), perhaps at lines 22 or 23. “Roll-out” is one of those new Labour terms that means nothing.

Ben Wallace: Like “step change.”

Edward Garnier: It suggests a series of step changes; my hon. Friend is entirely right.
When the Under-Secretary responded to me, he demonstrated something rather charming about himself: he has absolutely no sense of the ironic. It is touching, really, that a Minister who has the conduct of a Bill that is about to change the relationship between the state and the individual in the most appalling way does not see that the Opposition sometimes table amendments that expose the Government’s intentions, even if the Government do not understand those intentions themselves. There is no question but that the Bill will eventually lead to a change in how we conduct our everyday life. We will, as a matter of practice, leave our houses every morning carrying our identity cards. As I said at the outset, that will be done not as a matter of legal compulsion, but as a necessary practice.

Andy Burnham: I do not have a problem with that.

Edward Garnier: Well, I do. I think that that would be wrong and unfortunate.

Andy Burnham: As a point of interest to the Committee, how many cards does the hon. and learned Gentleman have on him at the moment that would confirm or suggest his identity?

Edward Garnier: To use the Minister of State’s expression, that is a canard. I am carrying none compulsorily. One must not confuse a credit card, a supermarket loyalty card or any other card that I may buy, hire or acquire as a matter of personal choice. Perhaps the Under-Secretary is now being ironic; if so, I owe him an apology. If anybody in the real world thinks that the identity card and register schemes will be anything other than compulsory as a result either of law or of growing practice, they are mistaken. I am afraid that I am going off on a different tack. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Indeed, it may be that the sooner my remarks come to an end, the better.
To be serious for a moment, it is no good producing what I would call saloon bar arguments—and here I shall probably lose the vote of every saloon bar drinker in my constituency—which are akin to, “If you’ve got nothing to fear, you’ve got nothing to hide.” Such an argument demonstrates either a sense of humour that I had not attributed to the Under-Secretary, or a failure to understand what will happen as a result of the Bill.
Let me return to the Under-Secretary’s arguments. The purpose of the amendments is to get the Government to face up to the real consequences of the Bill. If I have to pursue that purpose by tabling amendments such as amendment No. 57, I will, but I fear that I have failed to persuade them of the real consequences of what they are doing. That is deeply regrettable, although it was perhaps foreseeable. I have been here long enough to realise that I cannot always get my way, and I understand the arithmetic of the Committee.
Probably the most important reason why I shall ask for permission to withdraw the amendment is that I would not want the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to have flown all the way to London just to abstain in person on amendment No. 57.

Alistair Carmichael: I did not, nor would I ever, sign up to amendment No. 57.

Edward Garnier: Even I can read. However, I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman’s name has slipped on to the “modification paper”, as we now call it, as a supporter of amendments Nos. 58 to 60. I am delighted to see it there, because one way or another our two parties can achieve something good in this Committee, even if we cannot get our amendments made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 Prohibition on requirements to produce identity cards

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 224, in clause 18, page 17, line 2, at end add—
‘(5)It shall be unlawful for any person imposing any condition or requirement in relation to or on an individual in cases falling within subsection (2) to discriminate against such a person or group of persons on any grounds, including nationality, ethnic or national origins, colour, race, citizenship or immigration status.’.
This is an important clause, because as we have seen already, it underlines the prohibition on requirements to produce an identity card. We have had a number of discussions and arguments about that issue in respect of various parts of the Bill. We therefore thought it both sensible and prudent, to borrow a phrase from the Government, to introduce an amendment that would add a new subsection (5), as shown. I hardly need expound that the intention of the amendment is  to ensure that, despite the conversations that we have just had, use of the card as some sort of racial tool by whatever authority—including the police or other enforcement agencies—becomes an offence if it can be proved clearly. It is as simple as that.
The clause is important, and by adding the simple subsection proposed in the amendment, we would not only strengthen the provision, but have a clear understanding in the Bill of a number of the issues we have described already with regard to illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, Travellers and the like.

Tony McNulty: In essence, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill is in full compliance with all extant and live statues. I have yet to see the clause that says, “For the purposes of this Bill, the following statutes are not applicable”, followed by a list including the Sex Discrimination Act 1986, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and so on. The Bill must be in full compliance with all existing legislation. That is as it should be.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s motive, but what he wants is wrong and unnecessary, not least because he is seeking—this is the case in terms of where we are as of this date, or at least where we get to with commencement of the Bill, should it become an Act—to ensure that only the elements that are germane to legislation now should prevail. I am not sure that there is a provision in the Equality Bill that is before the House or soon will be, but sexuality may well become another area that pushes on the body of discrimination legislation. If we agree to the amendment, regardless of whether there is a subsequent Act, such measures would not apply in his terms.
I am not saying that there is a deliberate ruse behind the amendment, but I think that it is right and proper—I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to use this opportunity to say so—that the Bill, along with all the others that will hopefully become Acts, must be fully compliant with everything already on the statute book, unless something says otherwise. That is not the case, so it is compliant. Whether we are talking about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, race relations, the Human Rights Act 1998 or all elements of anti-discriminatory legislation, we will ensure that the Bill is fully compliant when it is enacted and duly takes effect.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s motives, but other issues remain afoot, even with all that legislation in place, on which we need to be very careful, not least in respect of what was said earlier about those who are most vulnerable and discriminated against in some way, such as by the authority at the consent point with regard to those with a learning disability. We need to pick up such matters in compliance with other assorted legislation through the established regulations.
The reasons for the amendment are utterly commendable, but the substance of the amendment is utterly unnecessary. I commend the hon. Gentleman on the spirit behind the amendment, but I ask him to seek leave to withdraw it because such matters are already embraced in the Bill.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister, who has reassured me. Our comments have served their purpose in probing the issue and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: I did not want to intervene in the debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, but it is important to bear it in mind that several worries were expressed on Second Reading, not only by Conservative Members, but by Labour Back Benchers, that the Bill might lead to a sense of alienation among the ethnic minority communities, especially in the city nearest to my constituency, Leicester, which has a 35 per cent. ethnic minority population, and in the big cities. I note that all three Government Front Benchers represent city seats. Well, Leigh is part of Greater Manchester. I have been there. It is not exactly the rolling acres of rural Leicestershire, but that does not matter.
The point is that we all represent constituencies in which people will feel alienated to some extent because of things that are done to them by the Government. Given the matters under discussion and at such a time, it is particularly important that we are acutely sensitive to the need of the ethnic minorities not to feel outside the normal rights of the citizen. I hope that we can be reassured daily that the Government have that in mind. I am sure they do, but we simply cannot slide by such issues as a matter of course.

Tony McNulty: I want to endorse those points—perhaps uniquely, given my record and that of the hon. and learned Gentleman thus far in our proceedings. I take his concerns sincerely to heart. It is our intention, and it will be our endeavour, to ensure that the picture he paints will not prevail.
On a personal note, my constituency has a 45 per cent. black and ethnic minority population and, much to the annoyance of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), it has the largest Gujarati and Hindu population in the country, which pleases me enormously. It is now the centre of British Hindu society.
Of course we take such matters seriously. We must, and whether in respect of ethnicity, racial or disability discrimination, or the other worries raised under the previous amendment, we are much alive to such issues. They must and will permeate all aspects of the Bill, including the 60 regulatory powers when appropriate. On behalf of the Government, I accept with sincerity the exhortation of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to take such matters seriously.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Use for purposes of public authorities etc.

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in clause 19, page 17, line 10, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
‘(2)The provision of information is authorised in this section where it is—
(a)the provision of information to the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, the Director of the Government Communications Headquarters, the Director-General of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, a chief officer of police; and
(b)it is—
(i)in the interests of national security; or
(ii)for the purposes connected with the prevention or detection of crime.’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 179, in clause 19, page 17, line 12, leave out “connected with” and insert “necessary for”.
No. 239, in clause 19, page 17, line 13, after “Service’s”, insert “current”.
No. 215, in clause 19, page 17, line 16, after “Service’s”, insert “current”.
No. 216, in clause 19, page 17, line 19, after “the”, insert “current”.
No. 217, in clause 19, page 17, line 22, after “Agency’s”, insert “current”.
No. 62, in clause 19, page 17, line 22, at end insert
‘for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2A).
(2A)The purposes specified in this subsection are—
(a)in the interests of national security;
(b)for purposes connected with the prevention or detection of crime; or
(c)for other purposes specified by order made by the Secretary of State.’.
No. 63, in clause 19, page 17, line 27, leave out
‘the prevention or detection of crime’
and insert
‘the detection of serious crime which shall mean any crime giving rise to an offence triable only on indictment’.
No. 180, in clause 19, page 17, line 27, after “of” , insert “serious”.
No. 64, in clause 19, page 17, line 27, leave out from “crime” to end of line 28.

Alistair Carmichael: I wish first to bring the Committee’s attention to amendment No. 178. Here, as with other amendments, I am concerned about the wide drawing of the clause. This amendment would bring the provision of information back to the purposes of the Bill under clause 1. For that reason, subsections (2) and (3) would be removed. The amendment would produce a tighter definition allowing for the provision of information to a chief officer of police
“in the interests of national security”—
that is fine; it is included in clause 1—or
“for purposes connected with the prevention or detection of crime”,
which is also similarly provided for in clause 1, or, as in the existing subsection (3)(c),
“for other purposes specified by order made by the Secretary of State.”
That wording does not sit easily; it has a certain lightness and there is insufficient specification. I do not, on a quick reading of clause 1(4), see an equivalent provision, although if any other Committee member can find one elsewhere in the clause I will stand corrected.
The newly worded subsection (2) would state:
 “The provision of information is authorised in this section where it is ... for the purposes connected with the prevention or detection of crime.”
That is preferable to the version in the Bill, which states that provision of information should be
“connected with the carrying out of any of that Service’s functions”.
That wording is repeated in subsection (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) in relation to the director general of the Security Service, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, the director of Government Communications Headquarters and the director general of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Those purposes may be much wider—either now or at any time in future—than those of the Bill. It is more important that the purposes of the Bill are a determining factor in the information to be disclosed.
Amendment No. 179, which is probing, would change the definition, which refers to
“purposes connected with the carrying out of any of that Service’s functions”
I suggest replacing “connected with” with “necessary for”. The words “connected with” might be regarded as a loose, or tenuous, connection, whereas “necessary for” would provide a greater safeguard.
Amendment No. 180 is a stray that deals with amendments on the purposes of the Bill in clause 1. Earlier,I sought to amend the purposes to read “serious crime” instead of “crime”, but that battle was lost and this is a straggling soldier from that skirmish. I do not intend to press it to a vote.

Edward Garnier: Amendment No. 62, which stands in our name as well as that of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and amendment No. 178—the lead amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats alone—are, broadly, two ways of looking at the same problem, as are the other amendments in the group.
In giving the Secretary of State power to do things without the consent of the individual, particularly when such things are being done without their knowledge, we should restrict as best we can, and within the confines of common sense and the national interest, the Secretary of State’s remit. Clause 19(1) states:
 “The Secretary of State may, without the individual’s consent, provide a person with information recorded in an individual’s entry in the Register”.
The bits that we wish to amend in subsection (2) show us where that information might go. On one level, there is no reason to complain when the information on the register is provided to the security services, the intelligence services, GCHQ or the Serious Organised Crime Agency. There is a perfectly  acceptable and understandable reason for information being provided to those agencies—or agency heads—for the statutory purposes set out in clause 1.
 If we are to hand over to the Secretary of State—even though unelected officials rather than that Cabinet Minister will deal with this administrative aspect—those powers to share information about us with the secret services without our knowledge and consent, we must be sure that they are doing so properly. The only way we can do that is to ask the Government to assure us, by way of accepting the amendments, that that is likely to happen.
I will explain further. Clause 19(2)(a) states:
“The provision of information is authorised by this section where it is—
(a)“the provision of information to the Director-General of the Security Service for purposes connected with the carrying out of any of that Service’s functions”.
I know what the policy behind that provision is and I understand what it is for, but
“any of that Service’s functions”
could, in the wrong hands, mean more or less anything. It could allow an indolent or rogue official, acting for the Secretary of State or the director-general, to use the powers in an unconstitutional and damaging way. I will not repeat the same point in relation to the other paragraphs, because the same arguments apply.
We need to be assured that
“any of that Service’s functions”
means any of its functions in relation to securing the national interest as described in clause 1(4), which lists
“(a)in the interests of national security;
(b)for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime;
(c)for the purposes of the enforcement of immigration controls;
(d)for the purposes of the enforcement of prohibitions on unauthorised working or employment; or
(e)for the purpose of securing the efficient and effective provision of public services.”
Some of those might not be relevant in terms of clause 19(2)(a).
The provision should be used only and expressly for those purposes. It should not be used for any other interesting exercises that the various security chiefs or agency chiefs may find it convenient to enter upon, or any other given purpose. A Minister might say that it is obvious that, if one marries up clauses 1 and 19,
“any of that Service’s functions”
 is confined by clause 1, but we are dealing with a Bill that will simply enable the Secretary of State to do things that we do not yet know.
We have not seen the statutory instruments, the code of practice or the guidance to be issued—for example, to the director-general of the Security Service by the Home Office. It is important that at this stage we get at least oral assurances from the Government that the activities of those unaccountable agencies—[Interruption.] They are accountable to Parliament via the politicians who head them up, but are unaccountable in the sense that we cannot cross-examine them day by day. We do not see them. We do not know necessarily—perhaps for good reason—what they are up to all the time.

Ben Wallace: To return to an earlier point about paragraph 9 of schedule 1, there was a debate in which the Minister of State said that reference to “any” of the functions of the security and intelligence services did not mean that browsing would be allowed. In respect of the word “any”, the amendment to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland alluded would go a long way towards closing down part of the issue. At the time, the Minister said that the functions of the security services and of all other the agencies were confined to those that passed the necessity test in clause 1.
In considering whether to let the clause stand part of the Bill, we Opposition Members should examine what the Minister means, because “any” of the functions are permitted in the interests of national security. National security is in the necessity test of clause 1, so the services would be allowed to carry out any of their functions, and that includes—I shall say the word, because I know that the Minister of State will enjoy it—browsing. If something is in the interests of national security, it is, according to my reading, permissible under clause 1(4)(a), which says
“in the interests of national security”.
The fact that we are talking about “any” of the functions is important. If the Government returned to the issue and were more focused about when a request for information could be made, that would help. In an earlier sitting, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that, in other circumstances, the services will submit a warrant or a request to a member of Government before the functions—whatever they are—act on individuals, or at least in certain circumstances. It is important that the Minister recognises the fear about the word “any”.
I know that I will be attacked, as I was earlier, on the basis that I am trying to limit the capabilities of the security services or hamper their abilities. I am afraid that that is precisely what I am doing—on this issue. It would be easy to allow the security services to lock everyone up. Of course it is the role of Government to limit the functions of the security services when those functions work against the freedoms of our society, and of course we should limit how far the security services can go. The amendment would introduce an element of saying, “That is too much.” The security services have plenty of apparatus at their disposal already, before they go into our register.
When the Minister talks about “any”, will he provide some clarification so as to persuade me why I should not support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as it at least tries to give a bit of focus on the ability and powers of the agencies?

Andy Burnham: This has been a useful debate. With respect to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, it is absolutely right that the Committee should give careful thought to this part of the Bill, because the  issue of providing information without consent requires careful balancing of rights. However, in creating a national identity register, we should give the services that protect the public proportionate access to that register. The clause as drafted does that. I will deal with the amendment specifically, but first I should say that it is right that the services should have the access that they need.
To pick up on a comment made about me by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, I may be a saloon bar pundit in some of my thinking, but I think that, at this particular time, our constituents would expect us to make everything available to the police and security services if it was in the interests of national security, as long as provision for that was clearly laid down in statute, as approved by this House and the other place. That is the background. I accept that the point made about the balance is important; we must and should get that right in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has made my first point many times. The information on the register is held in confidence: there is no open access and no ability to browse through the register. However, as I have said, it is right that the security services and the police should be able, on request, to access information for the purposes spelt out in the clause.
Amendment No. 178 would limit the provision of information without consent to the security services, the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the police to circumstances in which the provision of that information was
“in the interests of national security or for the ... prevention or detection of crime”.
The amendment would narrow the grounds on which information from the register could be provided.
I would be the first to say that those two purposes would be the overwhelming reasons used for seeking information from the register. Opposition Members are right to pull out those two points as pivotal and crucial, but I ask whether it would be wise to limit the information that can be provided to those agencies in respect of those two purposes.
Subsection (2) limits the information that can be provided to the security and intelligence services to purposes connected with the carrying out of their functions. That brings me to the legitimate points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. He will see that paragraphs (a) to (d) of clause 19(2) are about the specific functions of those services; paragraphs (c) and (d) relate to GCHQ and SOCA respectively. I hope that that answers his question about the purposes for which the information would be sought. He will know, for instance, that the Security Services Act 1989 lays out the functions of the Security Service. I shall list them for the avoidance of doubt: protection of national security, support of law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime and safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
The functions of the service go more broadly than the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The existing limitation to the purposes  of each organisation is intended to ensure that information is disclosed only to bodies with a legitimate public interest in having it. The statutory purposes of all the bodies listed in subsection (2) were quite properly laid down by this place. Those purposes have been scrutinised and approved by Parliament. Parliament has agreed those bodies’ functions, which are what we as representatives of our constituencies want them to carry out on our behalf.
The question that I pose to Opposition Members is: why we would limit the purposes for which such bodies could receive the information to only part of their functions? That does not seem sensible, and it would send a conflicting message. I make no bones about it: our purpose in creating a national identity register is to help those agencies do their job.

Edward Garnier: I am sure that what the Under-Secretary says is perfectly sensible. Will he help me with amendment No. 64, which he may have been coming to anyway? The amendment deals with the deletion of subsection (3)(c), which reads
“for other purposes specified by order made by the Secretary of State.”
That is deliciously vague. Can he help us with that? Although I see that there is—or may be—a perfectly sensible reason for not wanting to restrict the secret services in their carrying out of particular functions so long as we have, or somebody has, some idea of what those functions are, I am less sanguine about that paragraph.

Andy Burnham: I shall come to that point, but I want first to finish my point about the statutory functions of the organisations listed in subsection (2). That picks up on the contribution made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, who has more experience of the security services than me. Of course, it is not our intention to allow irresponsible or improper use of the data or for them to be used in an unaccountable way. I think that the idea that a certain unaccountability is attached to the services was mentioned a number of times. My view is that rather than limit the purposes for which those agencies can receive or use information, we should ensure that the information provided to them is authorised properly and has independent oversight, so that there is some accountable oversight of the way in which the register is being used.
The Bill provides for that. I refer the Committee to clause 23, which lays out the rules under which the powers in clause 19 should be used. Clauses 24 to 26 provide for independent oversight by either the national identity scheme commissioner or the intelligence services commissioner. I understand the reasons why Opposition Members have tabled these amendments. I hope that they will be reassured on that point.
Let me move on to subsection (3) and the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member  for Harborough. As he will see, the police service is treated differently with respect to the clause. Subsection (3) permits information to be provided to a chief officer of police where that information is
“in the interests of national security ... the prevention or detection of crime; or ... for other purposes specified by order”.
If I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman, that is the area that he is most concerned about. We have taken this approach because the police have common law as well as statutory powers and do not have a set of statutory purposes in the same way as the organisations that I have been talking about. I refer members of the Committee to the similar approach taken in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Amendment No. 64 would remove the ability to specify in an order additional purposes for which the police could have information provided to them. I can already give the hon. and learned Gentleman some reassurance. He will see that the beginning of subsection (3) relates to
“information not falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1”.
That is effectively the audit trail. We are talking about a lower level of access to begin with. Perhaps that goes some way towards reassuring him.
The police quite rightly undertake work that would not be classified as preventing or detecting crime or protecting national security. They carry out functions leading to the performance of a wider service to the public, as we saw this week when the police service performed unbelievably harrowing work in identifying the bodies from last week’s tragedy. That work is not necessarily strictly limited to the prevention and detection of crime or to the protection of national security. As well as identifying people who have died, they are involved in work that entails tracing missing or vulnerable people who may be in danger. The functions of the police are broader than the prevention and detection of crime and the protection of national security. In that sense, it is sensible to allow them to have a broader scope for using information from the register.

Ben Wallace: I suppose the dispute is not about the other functions of the register—the fuller functions relating to identity and addresses. We are talking about the paragraph 9 information. The Under-Secretary has referred to one issue—the harrowing task of identifying victims—but it would be interesting to have a fuller picture of those other specified areas. No one is objecting to the other information; it is just the paragraph 9 information that we are asking about.

Andy Burnham: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. The clause gives flexibility to consider functions that could be added. He will know that those functions would be added by parliamentary order. If the powers were to be extended, the necessary provisions would come before Parliament and be subject to the negative procedure.
Subsection (7) was added in response to concerns expressed in respect of the previous Bill. The order-making power can be used only to authorise provision of information where that
“is necessary in the public interest”,
as that is defined in clause 1(4). The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was concerned about that. Subsection (7) explicitly links the use of the powers in the clause before us to the definition of public interest in clause 1(4).
Amendments Nos. 239 and 215 to 217 would add the word “current” to the references to the functions of the security services in clause 19. That would not make any difference because the functions of the services would in any event have to be interpreted in light of what their functions are as currently laid out in the relevant statutes. The addition of the word “current” would not enhance the Bill in any way. If the functions of the security services as set out in the Security Service Act 1989 were amended, then the new functions would govern their use of this information. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that there is a check and a balance there. The statutory purposes would be changed only by Parliament, and that would have a knock-on effect on this clause.
What about amendment No. 63? Did the hon. and learned Member for Harborough not want that to be dealt with?

Edward Garnier: I did not deal specifically with that amendment because it was grouped with other amendments. The Under-Secretary can speak to amendment No. 63 if he wishes to do so, but the arguments that he has advanced would apply broadly to it.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for those remarks. We would not want to limit the definition of a crime to a “serious crime” that gives rise to “an offence triable only on indictment”. As has been discussed, that would have a high threshold. It would seriously limit the usefulness of the register to the police, as they could not seek even basic information from it in relation to a person arrested for an offence, unless it was an offence of high order triable only on indictment.
Amendment No. 180 would also permit information to be provided to the police only for purposes connected with a serious crime. The law already allows the police to take fingerprints and a DNA sample from someone who has been arrested for a recordable offence in order to identify that person. The law also allows the police to hold that information. It would be very odd if, having created the national register, we were to limit the police’s access even to basic information from it—let alone to more sophisticated information such as DNA. We have no intention of tying the hands of the police in that way.
As I have tried to address in detail some of the legitimate concerns that have been raised, I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Under-Secretary for that thoughtful and detailed response. However, there were moments when he betrayed an attitude that clearly distinguishes the Government’s position from that of others—and certainly from my position. At one point, he said that people will ask why we should limit the purposes for which the security agencies may use the information that they obtain under the Bill. That is a very interesting attitude, which says that the Government, starting at the top and looking down to the people, are entitled to demand that information. The answer to his question, which I know was supposed to be rhetorical, is that it is there because people have consented to provide it under certain conditions about its being used in the interests of national security and for the detection and prevention of crime, the prevention of illegal working and so on.

Andy Burnham: I showed that attitude because I meant to do so. I make no apology for saying that the agencies should be given easy access to that information. The hon. Gentleman will know that they currently have access to information held in a range of sources, so it is not as if we are talking about a whole new field of operation. We are simply saying that they will have access to a high standard of identity verification and to a higher quality database than at present. I cannot see why any Member of this House should have a problem with that.

Alistair Carmichael: As I said, the matter comes down to the purposes for which that information is provided to or may be sought by the agencies. Those purposes could go beyond those for which information was originally given in the first place. It is almost a question of my consenting as an individual to give information for certain purposes and not thereafter wanting to lose sight of what happens to it.
The Minister spoke about proportionate access. He said that at this time—presumably, he was speaking in the light of events a week ago today—making information available should be in the interests of national security. The amendment would still make such availability allowable in the interest of national security. That is one of the two bases—the other is the prevention and detection of crime—on which we would make information available. He said that it was accepted that other aspects might be covered by those bases. I presume that he means, for example, that the security services might be interested in enforcing immigration controls. Their interest in that area, however, would surely be covered by the rider of the prevention and detection of crime or of the interests of national security, as would the enforcement of prohibitions on unauthorised working or employment. Again, criminal offences are attached to that purpose, and it might even be said to be enforced in the interests of national security. That strikes at the heart of the difference.
The Minister said that the statutory functions of at least one of the agencies—I did not get a note of it—also covered the economic interests of the country. I am not entirely comfortable with that, but will consider it when I head off to France in a few weeks’  time. My gut instinct, however, is that that is perhaps too wide, and that it goes much wider than the purposes in the Bill. In any event, the Bill uses the words “current functions”, and if they are to be modified at some later stage, perhaps in relation to the Civil Contingencies Act 2003, of which we have recently heard a great deal, so that information can be obtained without anybody necessarily being aware of it or without their consent being obtained, the issue would certainly be much wider.
We have had an interesting debate and I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has responded. I wish to return to the matter at some later stage in our proceedings, and for that reason alone, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Four o’clock till Tuesday 19 July at half-past Ten o’clock.